Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 601 of 968 (601977)
01-25-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:43 AM


Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
shadow, we're not going to get very far if you keep quoting half a sentence and pointing to one word. (e.g. Shapiro said INTELLIGENT. Shapiro said FUNDAMENTAL. Shapiro said NONRANDOM.)
Here's what Shapiro means by nonrandom.
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/...MS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
(Table of examples starts on page 16.)
Shapiro writes:
Another inaccurate assertion of conventional wisdom is the idea that DNA changes must occur randomly throughout the genome. Once again, there is a large and growing literature documenting examples (and sometimes clarifying mechanisms) where particular natural genetic engineering systems show decidedly nonrandom specificities of action.
He means "natural genetic engineering".
In the paper I've quoted, Shapiro includes a list of about 50 examples of natural genetic engineering. It's far too long to quote.
But examples include:
DNA damage --> transposon and retrotransposon activation
Heat shock --> IS element activation
Aerobic starvation --> base substitution
I am nearly certain this is not what you understood Shapiro to mean.
What did you understand "nonrandom" to mean?
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.
Edited by Admin, : Refix link.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link again after bug fix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:43 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by nwr, posted 01-25-2011 12:18 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 612 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2011 3:43 PM molbiogirl has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 602 of 968 (601980)
01-25-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by molbiogirl
01-25-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
(For the life of me I can't get that link to work. Just google it to find the .pdf.
Try this link
Note to Percy: Your software is broken. The encoded
[url]http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf[/url]
is being changed internally to the equivalent of
[url]http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/...isitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf[/url]
However, if I just enter the full url without the url tags
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/...sitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
it looks as if that would work.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2011 11:59 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2011 12:27 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 604 by Admin, posted 01-25-2011 1:21 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 614 by Admin, posted 01-26-2011 4:34 PM nwr has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 603 of 968 (601981)
01-25-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by nwr
01-25-2011 12:18 PM


Broken link
Thank you nwr! I never would have thought of that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by nwr, posted 01-25-2011 12:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 604 of 968 (601992)
01-25-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by nwr
01-25-2011 12:18 PM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
Thanks for finding this, I should be able to fix it within a day or two.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by nwr, posted 01-25-2011 12:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 605 of 968 (601997)
01-25-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:43 AM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
shadow71 writes:
For example if "random mutation" is found to be unable to change information in the cell to to allow one species to evolve into another species, would your theory of evolution still be true?
After all this discussion I have to assume that you know that random mutation can change the information in a genome, and that you're really focused on the part about discovering that random mutations cannot accumulate to create new species. This would be like knowing you could walk across the street but discovering that for some reason you couldn't walk across the country. Or it would be like knowing that objects fall but that given a deep enough hole that objects couldn't fall all the way to the center of the Earth. These would be be stunning discoveries.
The answer to your question is, "Yes." If it were discovered that random mutations cannot accumulate to cause species change then the underlying mechanism behind the origin of species would be gone, and evolution as we know it would be falsified. Given what we already know through observation and experiments this is about as likely as discovering that the sun really does orbit the Earth.
I am not equivocating between neo-Darwinism and the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution. I am saying that James Shapiro based upon his research wrote:
"hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering." (My emphasis}
If that is accurate...
Your interpretation isn't accurate. You won't make any progress by continuing to trot out one misinterpretation after another. Molbiogirl's link works now, read the paper, look at the table on page 16. Shapiro does at times express himself in ways that must sound like music to creationist ears, but if he were really saying what you think he's saying then all his colleagues would be calling him on it. But they're not, because you're misinterpreting him as saying something that he's really not.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:43 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2011 3:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 606 of 968 (602019)
01-25-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by RAZD
01-24-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
You are talking about two different aspects of it. No we are not clones of either parent but a combination of both. That is not what I am referring to here. I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 11:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 7:57 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 610 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 11:36 AM barbara has not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 607 of 968 (602021)
01-25-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by Taq
01-25-2011 11:52 AM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Perhaps you should not exclude all of the other species when you use chimps and humans to state your argument of mutational differences or similarities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 11:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 11:39 AM barbara has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 608 of 968 (602051)
01-25-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by shadow71
01-25-2011 11:43 AM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Hi shadow71,
Then according to your reasoning the theory of evolution as we know it can never be falsified because any new mechanisms we discover are automatically attributed to our theory of evolution.
No (however this misunderstanding could be the problem behind your failure to see that Shapiro, Konnin, Schwartz, etc, are not challenging the ToE as drastically as you appear to think).
What will falsify the theory of evolution is objective empirical evidence that some of the diversity of life is not explained by any of the mechanisms of evolution.
A cow that gives (natural) birth to a modern horse would violate the ToE, because (a) it would not fit into the nested hierarchies of life, and (b) would not involve hereditarty traits being passed from one generation to the next.
For example if "random mutation" is found to be unable to change information in the cell to to allow one species to evolve into another species, would your theory of evolution still be true?
First evolution does not equal random mutation, it involves selection of available mutations for those that offer the most opportunity for survival and breeding success.
Second, you need to define what you mean by "into another species" - do you mean that a cow cannot evolve into a horse? Or do you mean that one species of cow cannot evolve to the point where it is classified as another species of cow (arbitrary speciation based on the amount of morphological change observed)? Or do you mean where daughter populations of one species of cow become reproductively isolated and result in a (non-arbitrary) speciation event?
"hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering." (My emphasis}
And your continued misunderstanding. What is mobilized is a non-random increase in the rate of random mutations. He is still talking about hereditary variation.
If that is accurrate then randon mutation does not account for the process of evolution.
How does increased random mutation not involve random mutation?
Does not account for evolution from one species to another, macro evolution.
Curiously, we have lots of objective empirical evidence that shows that evolution - the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - has resulted in reproductive isolation of daughter populations occupying different ecologies. This is objective empirical evidence of non-arbitrary speciation, or macroevolution as it is defined and used within the science of evolutionary biology.
What you need to show is not that one species cannot evolve, but that species arise by some other method.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by shadow71, posted 01-25-2011 11:43 AM shadow71 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 609 of 968 (602055)
01-25-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:03 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences - how much is needed? some.
Hi barbara, thanks.
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.
Are you talking about the amount of change that biologists see in the fossil record before deciding that arbitrary speciation has occurred? That's kind of hard to define, seeing as the standard is essentially arbitrary.
If you are talking about the amount of change that subpopulations go through before non-arbitrary speciation occurs thru reproductive isolation, then I would suggest that the Asian Greenish Warbler is an excellent model:
Greenish warblers
quote:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.
Plumage Patterns
West Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. plumbeitarsus) differ subtly in their plumage patterns, most notably in their wing bars, which are used in communication. While viridanus has a single wing bar, plumbeitarsus has two. Around the southern side of the ring, plumage patterns change gradually.
Song
Male greenish warblers are very active singers, using song both to attract females and to defend their territories. Each male has a repertoire of song units, and songs are made by stringing together units in various ways. There is much geographical variation in both the song units and the rules by which units are assembled into songs. The figure below illustrates spectrograms of example songs from eight locations around the ring.
There is a clear gradient in song characteristics around the ring, with the northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus differing dramatically in their songs.
Due to a slight difference in plummage and a slight change in song, members of these two varieties do not see each other as potential mates, and thus are reproductively isolated: speciation.
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.
Note that in this case, the individual birds define themselves as different species, not the observing biologists: it is not a matter of opinion here on whether speciation has occurred.
So to answer your question: very little change is needed to be able to produce reproductive isolation.
This, however, does not mean that reproductive isolation always occurs when we see this amount of variation, as we can look at dogs as a contrary example. Dogs have experienced a lot of variation in a short time, but this has not produced reproductive isolation (as far as I know). I would take one as a minimum amount and the other as a maximum amount, and say that on average the answer lies in between.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:03 PM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 610 of 968 (602107)
01-26-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:03 PM


Re: Differences in DNA sequences
I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.
As RAZD mentions, this is somewhat arbitrary. It's like asking when someone stops being a child and becomes an adult. We can't pick a specific nanosecond when this occurs without being arbitrary even if the differences between a 10 year old and 30 year old are obvious to everyone. The same applies to changes in species through time. At the ends of the spectrum the differences are very obvious, but it is impossible to pick the single generation in which they moved from being one species to the next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:03 PM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 611 of 968 (602110)
01-26-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 607 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:11 PM


Re: what gets turned on? what's new?
Perhaps you should not exclude all of the other species when you use chimps and humans to state your argument of mutational differences or similarities.
If you can not deal with the human and chimp data then you can not explain any other species. The human genome is one of the most studied genomes out there, and the chimp genome has also been studied extensively. Both have been sequenced. We have an extensive hominid fossil record. The wealth of data makes the human/chimp relationship an ideal species pair to study, wouldn't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:11 PM barbara has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 612 of 968 (602158)
01-26-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by molbiogirl
01-25-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
the following is my reply to molbiogirl posts 601& 587. Percy's post 586, taq's posts 588 & 589.
My interpretation of James A. Shapiro’s natural Genetic Engineering theory
Shapiro writes:
The theory of evolution as expressed today has shortcomings that are not addressed or are ignored by the majority of evolutionary scientists.
My understanding of Shapiro’s position.
Molecular biology has discovered biochemical processes in living cells that shed a new light on the modern theory of evolution. Some of those processes are:
Reverse transcription
Posttranscriptional RNA processing
Catalytic RNA
Genome-wide transcription
Posttranslation protein modifications
DNA proofreading and repairs
From these and other findings he has found inter alia;
The cell is a multilevel information processing entity and the genome is only part of the entire interactive complex.
Mobile DNA movements rather than replication errors serve as the primary engines of protein evolution.
Horizontal DNA transfer between species and between the 3 high kingdoms of living cells may be a major driver of evolutionary novelty.
Genomic data documents the fundamental importance of horizontal transfer in the evolution of bacterial and archaeal genomes.
There is growing evidence for intercellular and interkingdom horizontal transfer events in the evolution of eukaryotic genomes.
Genome sequencing introduced a major process of rapid and multicharacter change into the established evolutionary record which has been largely ignored by the neo-Darwinian followers.
Whole genome doublings is another evolutionary process out side the Darwinian perspective that occurs suddenly, within a single generation, and simultaneously affects multiple phenotypic character.
Synthetic speciation takes place rapidly after hybridization rather than slowly following repeated selections, as predicted by conventional theory.
Hybridization in the Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, long a paradigm of gradualist evolution, leads to abrupt, unpredictable changes in beak shape.
The virtual infinite dimensions of possible genome configurations has too low a probability of success via the Darwinian gradualism which is too slow and indeterminate a process to account for natural adaptations even allowing for long periods of random mutation and selection.
Evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering employs a combinatorial search process based upon DNA modules that already possess functionality.
Hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering.
The Shapiro view of the21st century assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses asserted by McClintock. Namely the ability cells to regulate expression and restructure their genome according to the needs of the cells, and.
Her statement that the genome is a highly sensitive organ of the cell that monitors genomic activities and corrects common errors, senses unusual and unexpected events and responds to them.
Those four areas of molecular discovery are important to his 21 Century theory of evolution namely:
Genome organization
Cellular repair capabilities
Mobile genetic elements
Cellular information processing.
My interpretation of his writings lead me to the following interpretation of his writings.
That the three issues that are central to the formulation of a theory of evolutionary change are:
Descent with modification
Origins of hereditary variation
The operation of natural selection.
He accepts descent with modification, but does not accept natural selection and random mutation to the degree that the modern evoluntionists believe.
.I believe he is formulating a theory that does not rely on Random Mutation as a primary player in the evolving of organisms.
That Random mutation and selection have a low probability of success and that the molecular findings above are the major mechanisms for the evolutionary process.
That gradualism is not a major factor in evolutionary change, but rather the novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once.
As to natural selection, I beleve he finds it not as important as natural genetic engineering selection.
So I am of the opinion that Shapiro is expressing the opinion that the information processing and regulatory actions taken by the cells are an expression that there is intelligence in the cells and this is the major factor in evolution.
In short Shapiro, in my opinion, is of the opinion based on his scientific findings and the findings of many others that organisms posses NATURAL GENETIC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS that are basically the major causes of evolution, both micro and more so macro evolution.
As to how these systems arose, Shapiro stated in the ID forum discussed in our posts:
All existing living organisms possess natural genetic engineering capabilities. So they must be pretty fundamental. Any self-organizing evolving system has to have the capacity to alter its information store. That’s what they do. Where they come from in the first place is not a question we can realistically answer now, any more than we can explain the origin of the first cell.
The long and short of it for me is that Shapiro’s Theory is somewhere between the Modern Darwinian theory of evolution and the Intelligent Design theory of evolution.
Hope this helps in answering your questions Molbiogirl and Percy, and clarifies my position with all on this board
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2011 11:59 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Percy, posted 01-26-2011 4:21 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 615 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 5:26 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 617 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2011 6:03 PM shadow71 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 613 of 968 (602173)
01-26-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by shadow71
01-26-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
Just picking one wrong thing at random:
shadow71 writes:
So I am of the opinion that Shapiro is expressing the opinion that the information processing and regulatory actions taken by the cells are an expression that there is intelligence in the cells and this is the major factor in evolution.
Shapiro does not believe cells are intelligent in the same way that humans are intelligent. This has been explained to you over and over nine ways from Sunday.
We're all aware that Shapiro expresses himself in ways that actually encourage creationist misinterpretation, but we've explained how you're misinterpreting him. You have to respond to those explanations instead of just repeating your misinterpretations. There's really nothing new we can add.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2011 3:43 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2011 7:28 PM Percy has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 614 of 968 (602178)
01-26-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by nwr
01-25-2011 12:18 PM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
Bug should be fixed.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by nwr, posted 01-25-2011 12:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by nwr, posted 01-26-2011 5:58 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 615 of 968 (602193)
01-26-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by shadow71
01-26-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Shapiro's definition of nonrandom
I will try not to go line by line, but rather an overall dissection.
Firstly, a mutation is any change in the DNA sequence. This includes point mutations, deletions, and insertions. Movement of a mobile DNA element into another part of the genome IS a mutation. Moving a gene out of one genome and into another is mutation, as in the case of HGT. Shapiro does argue that point mutations alone can not produce the changes we see, and I agree with him. However, you can't change the DNA sequence of a genome and not call it a mutation.
Secondly, DNA regulation and DNA sequence are separate (but intertwined) things. All life has gene regulation, at least that I am aware of. The example that most undergraduates are exposed to is the E. coli lac operon discussed here. By using this system E. coli are able to adjust the expression of their beta-galactosidase gene in with differences in concentration of both glucose and lactose, as well as the metabolic state of the E. coli. There is nothing "intelligent" about it. There is no independent decision making. Either the regulatory proteins bind to the promoter regions or they don't, dependent on the presence of lactose and cyclic-AMP. The DNA regulatory response is automated.
Of course, this is in a relatively simple prokaryote, but the same holds true in eukaryotes. The only difference is the number of DNA bindings sites and the proteins that bind to them, the number of genes under regulation, and the number of stimuli that cause changes in gene regulation. The difference is an increase in numbers, not a difference in kind. Also, changing gene expression through time and space is the fundamental force that guides embryonic development.
The punchline here is this. In order to get a different response to the same stimulus you need a different DNA sequence. It is the mutation of promoters and regulators that can drive the evolution of morphology in complex animals.
Finally, mutations are random with respect to fitness, even in the examples given by Shapiro and in line with neo-Darwinian theory. Shapiro correctly argues that mutations are not random with respect to position in the genome or through time. The rate of mutation does change through time and there are mutation hotspots. However, this doesn't change the fact that the result of these mutations is beneficial, neutral, and detrimental. You still need selection of these mutations in order to drive evolution.
One of the examples that Shapiro uses for "targeted mutagenesis" is the development of antibodies. This also offers a prime example of what I am talking about. Early in your life your immune system creates millions of B-cells, each of which produces a single antibody. Each antibody is the result of shuffling many domains into just a few. You can think of it as being dealt a five card hand from a deck of 52, and it is just as random as shuffling the deck and passing out cards. After this occurs the B-cell expresses the antibody on it's surface and then just sits there. If and when an antigen comes along and binds to one of these antibodies it activates the B-cell that has the antibody exposed. This activation causes the B-cell to proliferate and a high rate and pump out massive amounts of this antibody. At the same time, the B-cell targets the antibody genes for higher rates of mutation. B-cells with mutated antibodies that bind more strongly to the antigen are turned on even more, producing even more specific forms of the same antibody. Most importantly, the B-cell does not know which mutations will improve binding and which will not. The genes are randomly changed and then passed through selection.
Even our immune system uses the mechanisms of random change followed by selection, one of the systems that Shapiro considers to be "intelligent". So what would happen if the B-cell used set responses to immunologic challenges? We would be toast. Our generation time is just too long compared to that of bacteria. If we only produced antibody A against E. coli, for instance, it would be a simple matter for E. coli to come up with the 1 in 10 trillion mutation that gets around that antibody due to the massive numbers of E. coli that can be produced in a short amount of time. We would go extinct without a random and dynamic immune system.
Also, you seem to be hung up on the idea that gradualism is the be-all-end-all of the theory of evolution. It isn't. Even Darwin himself voiced doubt that gradualism was the only route.
The long and short of it for me is that Shapiro’s Theory is somewhere between the Modern Darwinian theory of evolution and the Intelligent Design theory of evolution.
Only if ID theory posits that the cell is the source of the intelligence, and that this intelligence was produced by evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2011 3:43 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 641 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2011 4:18 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024